Ghulam Mohi Ud Din War vs. Union Territory Of J And K And Others (State Taxes Department)

Held

The Court held that the case of the petitioner was identical and similarly situated to that of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 2658/2025. Consequently, the Court disposed of the present petition in terms of the aforesaid judgment. The operative directions were that the petitioner must approach the Competent Authority for the registration of their GST number within seven days. The Competent Authority is directed to restore the petitioner's GST number immediately, subject to the completion of all requisite formalities. The petitioner is further directed to file returns and deposit taxes and penalty along with interest within seven days of such registration. The Court also stipulated that if the petitioner fails to comply within the stipulated period, the order would cease to be in operation, and the registration would be deemed withdrawn. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Ghulam Mohi Ud Din War, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar. The petitioner's counsel argued that the case was identical to a previous writ petition, WP(C) No. 2658/2025, decided by the same Court on October 29, 2025. The petitioner sought relief concerning their GST registration. The respondents were the Union Territory of J&K and Ors. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute were not explicitly stated in the judgment. The procedural history involved the filing of the writ petition and the reliance on a prior court order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present writ petition is identical and similarly situated to WP(C) No. 2658/2025, thereby warranting disposal in terms of the prior judgment? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner's case is identical to the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2658/2025, and therefore, the present petition should be disposed of in terms of the judgment passed in the earlier case. No specific provision of law was explicitly named in the argument, but the reliance was on the principle of parity and stare decisis. Revenue/State's contention: No specific arguments were recorded for the respondents in the judgment.